Abstract:Objectives: Randomized noncomparative trials (RNCTs) promise reduced accrual requirements vs randomized controlled comparative trials because RNCTs do not enroll a control group and instead compare outcomes to historical controls or prespecified estimates. We hypothesized that RNCTs often suffer from two methodological concerns: (1) lack of interpretability due to group-specific inferences in nonrandomly selected samples and (2) misinterpretation due to unlicensed between-group comparisons lacking prespecification. The purpose of this study was to characterize RNCTs and the incidence of these two methodological concerns. Study design and setting: We queried PubMed and Web of Science on September 14, 2023, to conduct a meta-epidemiological analysis of published RNCTs in any field of medicine. Trial characteristics and the incidence of methodological concerns were manually recorded. Results: We identified 70 RNCTs published from 2002 to 2023. RNCTs have been increasingly published over time (slope = 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.39, P < .001). Sixty trials (60/70, 86%) had a lack of interpretability for the primary endpoint due to group-specific inferences. Unlicensed between-group comparisons were present in 36 trials (36/70, 51%), including in the primary conclusion of 31 trials (31/70, 44%), and were accompanied by significance testing in 20 trials (20/70, 29%). Only five (5/70, 7%) trials were found to have neither of these flaws. Conclusion: Although RNCTs are increasingly published over time, the primary analysis of nearly all published RNCTs in the medical literature was unsupported by their fundamental underlying methodological assumptions. RNCTs promise group-specific inference, which they are unable to deliver, and undermine the primary advantage of randomization, which is comparative inference. The ongoing use of the RNCT design in lieu of a traditional randomized controlled comparative trial should therefore be reconsidered. Plain language summary: The typical way that doctors can learn whether new drugs are helpful is through a clinical trial. Often, doctors compare these new treatments to the control treatment being used in standard clinical practice. When researchers want to compare different treatments, they may decide to randomly assign one treatment or the other to trial participants. Like flipping a coin, randomly deciding which treatment to use can help researchers make the best comparisons between the new and control treatment by limiting certain biases. These trials are called "randomized comparative trials" and are the most common way researchers can improve medicine. A newer type of trial, called a "randomized noncomparative trial," has become increasingly popular in medicine. Like randomized comparative trials, this type of trial randomly decides which treatment participants receive. However, the "randomized noncomparative trial" is not designed to evaluate whether the new treatment results in better outcomes compared with the control treatment. Instead, the results of each randomized arm in the trial are compared to other patients, who are not a part of the trial, or to another measure set ahead of time by the researchers. This is justified by some researchers, who say that fewer participants are needed for such trials, which helps to finish the trial faster. However, directly comparing the results of patients after receiving a treatment on a clinical trial is one of the most important parts of the trial and the main reason why researchers would want to randomly assign treatments in the first place. To better understand how RNCTs are used in practice, we reviewed all such trials that have been completed in medicine to date. We found that more than half of RNCTs actually ended up comparing their patients anyway, despite saying they would not. This is a problem because these comparisons are not prespecified and may therefore be only reported when the result is what the researchers wanted. Furthermore, the main outcome of each trial was difficult to interpret in most trials because there was no effort to show that the enrolled patients were representative of any prespecified population that would facilitate comparisons with historical information. Overall, only five trials, or just 7% of the "randomized noncomparative trials" published in the medical literature, did not have either of these issues. As a result, this type of clinical trial does not seem to be a good way to improve medical care. If researchers want to learn which treatments are better, they should stick to the standard way to learn this-randomized comparative trials.

Avoidance of Duplicate Publications From Randomized Clinical Trials

Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?

Prevalence of and factors associated with potentially redundant randomized controlled trials: a cross-sectional study

Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study

Reporting Quality of English Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Major Chinese Medical Journals

A meta-epidemiological analysis of post-hoc comparisons and primary endpoint interpretability among randomized noncomparative trials in clinical medicine

Evaluation of randomized clinical trial papers published in medical sci-tech journals depending on 2010 CONSORT statement

[Real-World Evidence and Randomized Controlled Trials: the Initiation, Implementation, Progress Interpretation and Revelation of RCT DUPLICATE (part 1)].

Evidence Based Social Science in China Paper 3: The quality of social science RCTs published from 2000–2020

Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study

Real-world Evidence and Randomized Controlled Trials: the Initiation, Implementation, Progress Interpretation and Revelation of RCT DUPLICATE (part 2)

Quality Assessment of the Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 5 Journals of Psychiatry in China from 2004 to 2008 by Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement

Impact of selective reporting bias on stroke trials: potential compromise in evidence synthesis - A cross-sectional study

Quality of randomized controlled trials of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI): a literature and telephone interview study

Trends of Randomized Clinical Trials Citing Prior Systematic Reviews, 2007-2021

Text duplication of papers in four medical related fields

Several Issues of Statistical Analysis in Clinical Research

The sound and surprise: overlapping meta-analyses on the topic of safety and efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis

A survey of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in the field of pediatrics published in Chinese pediatric journal

A modified regression method to test publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes